<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" As a sort of denouement to a very eventful term, the Nine Wise Souls in Washington did a lot by doing nothing. First, on Monday, they put a stay on an anti-choice law from Texas and then, Tuesday, they refused to take action on a similar law in Mississippi that had been stayed by a lower court. In both cases, this means that the laws cannot be enforced.  As a result, the law will remain on hold for several more months \u2014 perhaps until the court decides whether to take a similar law from Texas. The Supreme Court Monday blocked enforcement of the Texas law while it&amp;#039;s on appeal. Passed by the state legislature in 2012, the Mississippi law was blocked by lower courts, which found that it would effectively force the state&amp;#039;s only licensed abortion clinic to shut down.   Given the current makeup of the Court, and given Anthony Kennedy&amp;#039;s performance in other cases arising from this same issue, it certainly is logical to assume that they only took these actions to buy themselves time to rule on the Texas law. (If they uphold it, these laws will sprout like mushrooms all over the country.) However, I wonder if we may be missing something else going on within the chambers of which we got something of a glimpse in the opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts delivered in King v. Burwell. Quite simply, Roberts ran out of patience with the argument that the Affordable Care Act was designed to fail in its fundamental purpose. He called out the fundamental absurdity of the case being brought before him and as much as called it an insult to the law.  A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.&amp;quot;  Trigger warning: major stretch coming. The two laws in question here are classic maneuvers in the ongoing state-level campaign to undermine the rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade. The &amp;quot;women&amp;#039;s health&amp;quot; rationale for them is pure camouflage for their intended purposes. This is as obvious as the shoddy basis for the case that the King plaintiffs brought before the Court. If I were being wildly optimistic, I&amp;#039;d wonder if there isn&amp;#039;t a rising intolerance among the justices for shabby persiflage masquerading as legal theory, and an increasing intolerance for people who want to write their campaign flyers into the statute books. Outside of our pal, Antonin (Short Time) Scalia, maybe the appeal of puppet-show conservatism has reached its limits with these people. Pardon me. I have to go and feed my unicorn now. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a36090/supreme-court-anti-choice/>